Back
2010 Supreme(Cal) 402
High Court Of Calcutta
Dipankar Datta, J.
Arjun Hembram : Appellant
Versus
Punjab National Bank : Respondent
C.O. 8121 (W) of 1996
Decided On : Apr 13, 2010
Important Points
Subject
Banking Law - Disciplinary Proceedings
Act Referred
Headnote
BANKING - Disciplinary Proceedings - Dismissal from Service - Petitioner, a bank manager, dismissed for various acts of misconduct including sanctioning loans without following proper procedures, allowing loans to fake and impersonated persons, not ensuring verification of securities, and misappropriating customer's money - Petitioner's admissions before the enquiry officer held against him - Charges held proved on the basis of admissions and other evidence - Dismissal from service upheld - No interference by the Court.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a bank manager, was dismissed from service following disciplinary proceedings for various acts of misconduct, including sanctioning loans without following proper procedures, allowing loans to fake and impersonated persons, not ensuring verification of securities, and misappropriating customer's money. The petitioner challenged the dismissal order, contending that the charges were not proved in accordance with the established principles of law, that the charges were vague and indefinite, and that the enquiry proceedings were not conducted in accordance with the relevant regulations.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the petitioner had admitted to most of the charges against him and that he had failed to persuade the enquiry officer not to act on such admissions. The Court also found that the charges were not vague and indefinite and that the enquiry proceedings were conducted in accordance with the relevant regulations. The Court held that the petitioner's dismissal from service was justified and dismissed the petition.
Issues: 1. Whether the charges against the petitioner were proved in accordance with the established principles of law? 2. Whether the charges were vague and indefinite? 3. Whether the enquiry proceedings were conducted in accordance with the relevant regulations?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Admissions made by the petitioner before the enquiry officer can be relied upon against him in disciplinary proceedings. 2. The charges against the petitioner were not vague and indefinite as he did not express his inability to understand the same and replied to the charges giving the impression that he was clear in his mind in respect of the alleged acts of commission/omission that he was required to explain. 3. The enquiry officer was not required to explain circumstances that were appearing in the evidence against the petitioner to him for eliciting his response thereto, as the petitioner had already made statements in his defence prior to the enquiry proceedings being closed.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed without any order for costs. However, the Court observed that the petitioner may be considered for reinstatement in a lower post without back wages, considering his admissions and the possibility that the heavy pressure of work load vis--vis shortage of staff had led to acts of omission/commission without any ulterior motive.
Kishore Dutta, Dilip Kumar Malty, Arunabha Ghosh, Sudhansu Sil, Raj Sekhar Basu
1. THE petitioner, prior to his dismissal from service of the Bank, respondent no.1 following disciplinary proceedings, was functioning as Manager at branch office Bhimpur in the district of Midnapore.
2. THE Chief Manager of the Zonal Office of the Bank at Calcutta issued charge sheet against the petitioner containing 12 (twelve) articles of charge vide charge sheet dated 9.9.1992. Most of the charges related to perfunctory discharge of duty by the petitioner leading to the likelihood of the bank facing huge financial loss. THE petitioner in his reply to the charge sheet denied the material allegations levelled against him. THE explanation furnished by the petitioner not having been found satisfactory, an enquiry was conducted by appointing an enquiry officer to unearth the truth. THE enquiry officer submitted his report on 3.12.1993 returning the following findings:
CHARGES FINDINGS I. Shri Hembram during incumbency at PO Bhimpur sanctioned loans under various categories of PS Advances with the connivance of the supplier and did not ensure compliance of Banks procedures for sanctioning and disbursement of loans PROVED
II. Shri Hembram had accommodated same parties and their relatives by sanctioning various loans without adhering to the Banks guidelines and procedures at PO Bhimpur. PROVED
III. Shri Hembram allowed loans to fake and impersonated persons. He sanctioned loans through middlemen/fake suppliers PROVED who did not supply the materials as per sanction.
IV. Shri Hembram did not ensure verification of securities and as a result securities were missing in a large number of accounts and Banks interest is jeopardized. PROVED
V. Shri Hembram sanctioned large number of loans for purchase of pumpsets in connivance with the suppliers at PO Bhimpur. He gave false certificate for end-use verification and did not ensure Banks procedures and jeopardized Banks interest. PROVED
VI. Shri Hembram had allowed to expire the limitation in loan accounts at PO Bhimpur and jeopardized Banks interest. PROVED on the basis of admission by Shri Hembram.
VII. Shri Hembram failed to obtain insurance cover in 80 accounts at PO Bhimpur and jeopardized Banks interest. PROVED on the basis of admission by Shri Hembram.
VIII. Shri Hembram did not obtain proper documents of loan accounts at PO PROVED except item No.B (iii), E and F. Bhimpur while sanctioning priority sector loans.
IX. Shri Hembram did not ensure postsanction follow up for recovery of Banks dues and failed to lodge DIandCGC claim in protested advance accounts at PO Bhimpur and jeopardized Banks interest. PROVED except accounts under items No.IX (b) and IX (c).
X. Shri Hembram at PO Bhimpur had incurred expenditure under various heads beyond his vested powers unauthorizedly. NOT PROVED.
XI. Shri Hembram at PO Bhimpur did not deposit Rs. 2600/- to the depositors account, instead pocketed the money. When the fact came to light, he deposited the amount to S/F A/c of depositor after about 4 months and the interest thereon was also deposited. PROVED.
XII. Shri Hembram while working as OIC at PO Chilkigarh from 3/1/86 to 12/5/90 sanctioned loans under various Priority Sector schemes and did not ensure PROVED on the basis of admission by Shri Hembram. proper en-use of funds. He also failed to make recoveries in all these accounts and put sizable funds of the bank in jeopardy.
The report of enquiry alongwith letter dated 25.9.1993 was furnished to the petitioner seeking his comments. He did not submit his comments. A further opportunity was extended to him vide letter dated 8.12.1993. However, the petitioner did not respond. It was presumed that he had nothing to say in respect of the report of the enquiry officer. Upon consideration of the materials on record, the disciplinary authority concurred with the report of the enquiry officer and decided to dismiss the petitioner from service of the bank with immediate effect in terms of regulation 4(h) of the banks Officer Employees (DandA) Regulations,
